CatholicVote.org » votinghttp://www.catholicvote.org
Tue, 03 Mar 2015 22:35:25 +0000en-UShourly1Faithful, Citizenhttp://www.catholicvote.org/faithful-citizen/
http://www.catholicvote.org/faithful-citizen/#commentsWed, 05 Oct 2011 22:21:54 +0000Kathryn Lopezhttp://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=21504Reading some of the reactions to the bishops’ decision to stick with their Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is a tad confusing. Some seem to interpret it as sticking it to the Right. Others, as some kind of cover for the Left. Actually, it strikes me as the continual challenge to the Catholic citizen, the Catholic in public/political life — whomever you are, whichever party you belong to: To pray for the prudence to discern what policy best supports true human freedom. To be pro-life and pro-marriage is part of it, but also how can we best serve all those who are most vulnerable? How can government best be stewards of the public trust? Neither party owns the faithful citizen’s vote. Neither party can afford to not take the precepts of Catholic social teaching seriously. It’s all related to those inalienable rights and the reason the United States exists.

The current archbishop of Philadelphia wrote a book on this general topic of faithful citizenship a few years ago. In an interview, he offered some useful guidance:

We should see ourselves as Catholic first — not white or black, or young or old. or Democrat or Republican, or labor militant or business owner, but Catholic first as the main way we identify ourselves. Our faith should shape our lives, including our political choices. Of course, that demands that we actually study and deepen our Catholic faith. The Catholic faith isn’t a set of clothes that we can tailor to a personal fit. We don’t “invent” our faith, and we don’t “own” it. If we really want to be Catholic, then we’ll live by Catholic teaching. Otherwise we’re just fooling ourselves and abusing the belief of other Catholics who really do try to practice what the Church teaches.

He added:

Don’t lie. If we say we’re Catholic, we need to back it up with proof. Our faith needs to be the North Star of our lives. Our behavior needs to match our words, including in our political choices.

The context: “A Greek Orthodox Priest tries to stop a rioter from throwing a Molotov cocktail at Greek Police.”

The background: Greece is in social and political crisis right now — crippling national debt and rising taxes are crushing the middle class, eliminating jobs and tearing at the nation’s social fabric, as this poignant article in the UK Telegraph makes clear.

Civic unrest and rioting as we are seeing in Greece, in Britain and other European countries as well are not going to diminish any time soon — here in America a large group of anarchists have been “occupying” Wall Street for the past week or so. And we all remember the union-led occupation of the capital in Wisconsin. These types of public displays of protest are going to get worse as massive government spending and overregulation kills off economic growth and diminishes prosperity, which means more people being forced to get along with less. But blessed are the peacemakers – violence is not the answer. Active and full involvement in peaceful politics is.

In this new context of economic contraction, churches and selfless, generous people of faith will play a critical role in reducing the human cost of bad government.

Look at the image again — we’re all called to be peacemakers. Let’s pray that this calling will be chiefly lived out in the United States by being actively involved faithful citizens in the democratic process and brave voices for truth in the public square, rather than actually being called to put our life and safety in jeopardy, as this brave priest did.

]]>http://www.catholicvote.org/photo-blessed-are-the-peacemakers/feed/7Proportionate Reasonshttp://www.catholicvote.org/proportionate-reasons/
http://www.catholicvote.org/proportionate-reasons/#commentsMon, 01 Feb 2010 18:40:03 +0000CatholicVotehttp://catholicvoteaction.org/blog/cva/index.php?p=591A bunch of us here have been discussing the framework of a Catholic decision to vote. I started off the trouble by posting this about my reflections on Brown’s victory and its meaning for the “non-negotiable approach.” I’ve had responses from Jay, Matt, and Justin, but it’s Matt’s latest response I really want to key in on.

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

Now contrast this with Matt’s post:

Catholics first compare candidates’ views on non-negotiable issues at stake in the election. Those issues get weighed proportionally against one another, but not against other, less fundamentally important, non-intrinsically-evil issues. So two candidates’ positions on abortion and same-sex so-called “marriage” might be weighed against each other, but they would not be weighed against the candidates’ views on ANWR or Afghanistan.

Non-negotiable issues are weighed, not merely labelled. Candidates are eliminated from consideration not for merely being wrong on non-negotiable issues, but for being worse on them. But the test isn’t whether the guy is worse overall–it’s whether he’s worse on non-negotiables. Non-negotiables don’t get weighed against negotiables. A candidate worse on non-negotiables can’t be supported because even if he has good marks negotiables. Non-grave issues can’t trump grave issues. So it’s never acceptable to support the candidate who is worse on the non-negotiable issues.

While Benedict says only “proportionate reasons” Matt seems to add another element to that: namely that the proportionate reasons derive from issues of intrinsic evils (hence non-negotiables).

It is true that, as Jay pointed out in his post, the bishops have stated that there is “a moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts [that] has a special claim on our consciences and our actions” (Faithful Citizenship #36). However as Matt describes it this obligation is such that we form two separate tiers such that unless the candidates are equal on the “non-negotiables,” the negotiables are not to be considered at all.

Where then would the Catholic stances on war, capital punishment, health care, poverty, etc. be? They would have to be nowhere, making one wonder why the bishops are wasting so much time on it.

Let’s take for example a candidate, let’s call Candidate A who is pro-abortion but doesn’t believe in FOCA, thinks gay marriage ought to be left up to the states and is indifferent to the marriage stuff as a whole and thinks we should fund ESCR. His opponent, candidate B, is pro-life: pro-life meaning agrees with Mexico city policy and appointing Supreme Court justices who have a chance at being pro-life (but abortion is not a litmus test) but would oppose a Life Amendment; he also thinks marriage should be left to the states and so wouldn’t change the constitution but likes to talk about family values and finally he thinks we should fund ESCR. And oh by the way, Candidate B also thinks we should invade China b/c he wants to maintain American dominance.

A war against China would be devastating and kill millions. The evil of this would be immense-but not intrinsic. Indeed, since candidate B is better on the intrinsic evils (though not by much) his stance on China is not even considered if we take Matt’s approach.

I think this is precisely the kind of trap we need to avoid (hence my opinion that ditching the language of “non-negotiable” would be beneficial by providing clarity). This rigid & severe tiered approach in which the non-negotiables are SO much more important than non-intrinsic evils that nothing else matters except as a tie-breaker doesn’t seem to make sense when tested.

It is this error that prompted this strongly worded rebuke from the bishops in Faithful Citizenship:

29. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.

The negotiables matter, b/c an evil is still an evil whether it is intrinsic or non-intrinsic and a Catholic must still engage them in a decision to vote, even if ultimately the issue of abortion is the primary factor in the decision. The Church’s teaching is a “seamless garment” from womb to tomb and we need to make sure that our voting provides consideration to all issues pertaining to human dignity, even if some issues by their nature are more important than others, like abortion.

]]>http://www.catholicvote.org/proportionate-reasons/feed/4Has the “Non-Negotiable” Voting Framework Come to an End?http://www.catholicvote.org/has-the-%e2%80%9cnon-negotiable%e2%80%9d-voting-framework-come-to-an-end/
http://www.catholicvote.org/has-the-%e2%80%9cnon-negotiable%e2%80%9d-voting-framework-come-to-an-end/#commentsFri, 29 Jan 2010 16:17:57 +0000CatholicVotehttp://catholicvoteaction.org/blog/cva/index.php?p=571My friend, Michael Denton, has a good post asking “Does the right’s support of [Scott] Brown mean an end to the non-negotiable framework of voting?“.

Michael offers 3 possible theories to explain the fact that many pro-lifers supported the pro-abortion Republican Brown over his Democratic (and also pro-abortion) opponent, Martha Coakley: (1) the Pessimist; (2) the Apologist; and (3) the Liberal. Do read Michael’s entire post in which he fleshes out these theories.

I want to focus, however, on Michael’s description of the “non-negotiable” framework of voting. I’m not sure the “non-negotiable” approach is necessarily as stringent as Michael has described it (although I think some people pushing the non-negotiable approach seem to argue that way).

What the Holy Father has stated regarding issues that are “not negotiable”, and what the U.S. Bishops seemed to confirm in Faithful Citizenship, is that issues like abortion, marriage, and the right of parents to control their children’s education (to name 3 items that the Pope has deemed “not negotiable”) can’t be treated as just some important items alongside a lot of other important items. When we vote, these items must be forefront in our minds and command priority. They can’t be swept aside because someone thinks a candidate is better overall on other important issues to Catholics (such as war, health care, welfare programs, etc.). In that sense, abortion, marriage, etc. can’t be “negotiated away” because we might prefer a candidate’s position on those other issue.

However, if the “non negotiable” position meant that Catholics could NEVER vote for candidates who countenance abortion, we would rarely be able to participate in the political process since even allegedly “pro-life” candidates generally allow for some exceptions to banning abortion. Unfortunately, there are very few “perfect” pro-life candidates out there. So, to some extent, even the non-negotiable position encompasses some level of pragmatism and prudence. Faithful Citizenship explicitly provides guidance for these situations:

36. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods. 37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.

“In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more of the five non-negotiables. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.”

So, I think there’s some nuance even in the “non-negotiable” approach that allows for pragmatism when neither candidate is “perfect” on the issues of primary importance to Catholics.